based on the book chapter by William V. Giannobile Summary This chapter describes how the volume of published research papers has risen over the last fifty years. The reasons it gives include not only dissemination of the findings and adding to the body of evidence but also the fulfilment of professional requirements -- for sponsors, for promotion and tenure. The author points to the valuable resources provided by the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) and COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), and lists what must be done when preparing a manuscript for submission. The tendency to include more authors is seen in all areas of research, including orodental, particularly with respect to dental practice-based research networks. Consequently, it is very important to be consistent and fair when assigning authorship, as distinct from contributorship. Here, the two roles are clearly distinguished, with a list of four ICJME criteria that must be met by authors. Reference is made to the publishing standards for common types of studies, such as CONSORT for randomized controlled clinical trials, which addresses how trials are designed, analyzed and interpreted; and STROBE for non-randomized clinical investigations, such as case reports, case series and cohort studies. The chapter also addresses issues such as over-citation, intellectual rights, gift authorships, redundancy, plagiarism, scientific misconduct and transparency, and points out the requirement by most peer-reviewed journals for international trial registration. Open full-text PDF (0.9 MB)

based on the book chapter by Suzanne Mason, Feng Wang, andDarnell Kaigler Summary This chapter explains the mechanisms of bone resorption and describes how to restore ridge deficiencies after tooth extraction and ensure a stable alveolar ridge for optimal implant survival, with a review of techniques and maintenance. The protocol was derived from a published study on the bone regeneration and stability after extraction of pre-molar or single-rooted anterior teeth. It defines the research question relating to a randomized controlled feasibility study, and cites how many patients are needed to undergo surgery. There are two treatment arms: one with autologous grafts using tissue repair cells (TRC) such as macrophages and mononuclear cells, derived from the patients bone marrow aspirates; others receive guided bone regeneration. The design, illustrated by a CONSORT diagram and clinical images of the procedures, incorporates phases for grafting/bone healing, implant osseointegration and biomechanical loading/restoration, with a 6-month follow-up consisting of postoperative care, specified evaluations and adverse-event recording. Primary and secondary endpoints are clearly defined, with assessments by CT, radiography, histology, the Misch bone density scale and torque testing. The recommended analysis is by KaplanMeier survival curves. The authors address the limitations of stem cell techniques, their isolation and expansion, and of transplantation of cells and grafts. Because biologicals are used, the authors recommend forming a data safety monitoring board (DSMB). Open full-text PDF (1.4 MB)

based on the book chapter by Nikos Donos and Nikos Mardas Summary This protocol focuses on measuring radiographic bone levels on the buccal side of augmented areas around implants after horizontal ridge augmentation, rather than at interproximal sites (a limitation of most published studies). The design offers a standardized means to assess graft materials, bone fillers and bone substitutes for horizontal ridge preservation, allowing comparisons of resorbable and non-resorbable materials and natural and synthetic membranes. It includes two randomized controlled trials for patients with bone defects from destructive gum disease who need local ridge augmentation before implantation. One trial uses a simultaneous technique whereby implants are placed in bone augmented with a new bone substitute plus a new or standard membrane, or a standard collagen membrane plus deproteinized bovine bone mineral; this trial comprises two phases surgical implantation and observation. The other trial is a staged technique comprising a new block-bone graft/substitute plus a new or standard membrane, and autogenous block bone graft plus a standard collagen membrane; this has a third phase. A 1-year timeline and 5-year follow-up is suggested for both trials. The authors cite various histologic and radiographic endpoints, photon bubble oscillations, peri-implant bone preservation, implant survival, patient morbidity, adverse events and patient-related outcomes. Images are provided of the change in bucco-palatal/lingual alveolar ridge width 6 months after the procedure. Open full-text PDF (1.3 MB)

based on the book chapter by Isabella Rocchietta, David Nisandand Massimo Simion Summary This chapter reviews the need for standardized research into vertical ridge augmentation procedures because restoring bone volume after trauma or disease is clinically challenging; the outcomes are unpredictable, the complication rates are high and success is limited. The presented protocol involves initial augmentation surgery comprising a composite graft of autogenous bone and deproteinized bovine bone, with tenting screws and a PTFE membrane overlay, followed 6 months later by surgical removal of the membrane and screws and placement of an implant. Guided bone regeneration is compared with a gold standard two-stage procedure using autogenous bone strips with deproteinized bovine particles and a titanium-reinforced membrane. The timeline incorporates a 6-month evaluation phase and further evaluation 4 months later, with a 5-year follow-up. Patient numbers and selection criteria are defined, along with suitable endpoints, care routines and the use of cone-beam CT to assess bone gain and quality. The descriptions are illustrated by CT images, radiographs and clinical photographs that show preparation of the donor and implant sites in both surgical phases. The evaluation phase relates to responses of the defect over time in terms of resorption of graft particles, soft tissue swelling, inflammation, and bone destruction and formation. What the protocol aims to do is improve outcomes for patients with traumatic tooth extractions, jaw damage, endodontic infections and failed implants. Open full-text PDF (1.4 MB)

Professor Christoph Hmmerle has served as president of the Osteology Foundation for 12 years. His term of office came to a close at the end of May 2015. In an interview, he looked back over the past 12 years and how the Osteology Foundation has developed since it was founded by Dr Peter Geistlich, who he reveres with gratitude and respect. The Osteology Foundation was founded 12 years ago, and you have been its President since then. It seems that the Foundation has now grown up as it were. What are your recollections, when you look back on the development of the Foundation? Christoph Hmmerle: The Osteology Foundation has grown to be a highly respectable organization over recent years. I think the key elements for this success have been the excellent teamwork among the members of the Foundation Board, the dedication of those working in the office and, very importantly, the support and the academic freedom granted by the Founder Dr Peter Geistlich. When you look back, what were the highlights during those 12 years? Christoph Hmmerle: The development of the Osteology Foundation has been a continual step-by-step process. There were many highlights during this development. Some key events surely were the National and International Osteology Symposia, which have grown steadily in size and reputation. Another important aspect has been the grant program providing support of research projects, which has led to many publications advancing soft and hard tissue regeneration in science and practice. Yet another true highlight was the development of the Osteology Research Academy (ORA). This Academy offers education in research methodology to anyone interested and allows the participants of the courses to gather knowledge, acquire skills, as well as build and develop valuable research networks. The Foundation was founded by Dr Peter Geistlich in 2003. How was your relationship with him? Christoph Hmmerle: He truly was an elder statesman, a charismatic person who was very much respected by those around him. I enjoyed a trustful and respectable relationship with him. When I think of him, it is with gratitude and respect for what he did, what he achieved and who he was. Can you share one or two personal moments with Dr. Peter Geistlich that you remember well? Christoph Hmmerle: I felt very touched, when he offered me first name terms during a dinner. I know that he only offered this to a few people. I interpreted it as a sign of his trust in me and in our relationship. I also remember very well the charismatic way in which he made his statements, when we did recordings for an Osteology film. And another situation that sticks in my mind was during the Osteology Symposium in Monaco in 2007, when I had the honor of presenting him with a gift. He was a rather reserved person, who usually didnt like to be at the center of attention. But on this occasion he came onto the stage to accept the gift and the gratitude of the audience. Did the Foundation experience any crisis or major problems during your 12 years of presidentship? Christoph Hmmerle: No, we never experienced a crisis. There has always been a high level of dedication from the Osteology Office, sustained support from the founder and enthusiasm for the Foundation and its causes from within the Osteology Board. Of course, there were situations and decisions that called for intensive discussions, but ultimately we always found beneficial solutions paving the way for further progress of the Foundation. It seems that the Osteology Foundation managed to put a large proportion of ideas into practice. It now offers a broad range of activities and tools for Scientists and Practitioners. At the outset, did you expect that the Osteology Foundation would grow to such an extent and become so successful? Christoph Hmmerle: Definitely not. We did not foresee this significant and wonderful development. All this became reality, because we recognized the needs in this field, reacted to changes, identified important gaps and reacted positively to all these challenges. We responded to the needs in the field by offering education and training for researchers and clinicians, providing meaningful information in the form of research guidelines, offering grants for research projects, organizing funding for academic scholarships, reflecting the state of the science by conducting consensus conferences, etc. Looking back over the past 12 years of the Foundation, we have clearly offered value to the community, which has been well received and has significantly contributed to the positive development in the field of hard and soft tissue regeneration. Is there something of which you are particularly proud, or something special that you feel you have personally achieved during your presidentship? Christoph Hmmerle: I believe it is most important that everybody has had the opportunity to put their influence and personal strength to good effect. Within the Board, the Office and the relationship with the Founder, there has always been a spirit of trust and respect allowing everyone to work to the best of his or her capabilities. I consider this one of the most important aspects in the success of the Osteology Foundation. You are not saying a final farewell to the Foundation when your period of office ends in June. You will remain a member of the Foundation Board for two more years. Are there any specific projects that you plan to realize during this time? Christoph Hmmerle: When ones term is over, it is time to step down. But of course, I will provide support and advice where needed. With the new members of the Board and the Executive Board I am fully convinced that there will be further positive development of the Osteology Foundation. At this point, I would also like to express my special thanks to the Board of Directors of Geistlich, in particular to Dr Andreas Geistlich, for having affirmed their continued support for the future of the Osteology Foundation. When you are no longer president of the Osteology Foundation, what are you going to do with the plentiful free time you have? Christoph Hmmerle: I will have more time to further develop online education. I am fully convinced that online education is becoming a key platform for the exchange of knowledge and for communication in our modern interconnected world. We started a project called Dental Campus back in 2007, which is unique and has a great potential for further development. So, maybe there will be not so much free time waiting for me. But of course I will also enjoy having more time to spend with family and friends, doing sports or being in the mountains. Mariano Sanz will be the next president of the Osteology Foundation in June 2015. Is there something that you would like say to send him on his way? Christoph Hmmerle: I have known Mariano for a long time and we have worked together for several years and on various projects. He is highly experienced and well established as a researcher, a clinician, an academic and a leader. With him as President, the Osteology Foundation will be in the best possible hands! Thank you very much, Professor Hmmerle! Interview: Dr Heike Fania

On the occasion of the Osteology Board Meeting on June 22, 2015 in Zurich, the presidency of the Osteology Foundation was officially handed over from Christoph Hmmerle to Mariano Sanz. Professor Christoph Hmmerle served as president of the Osteology Foundation for 12 years, ever since it was established. Looking back at his term of office, he said in an interview prior to the meeting in Zurich: The Osteology Foundation has grown to be a highly respectable organization over recent years. I think the key elements for this success have been the excellent teamwork among the members of the Foundation Board, the dedication of those working in the office and, very importantly, the support and the academic freedom granted by the Founder. Read the full interview with Christoph Hmmerle Even though his term of office as president of the Osteology Foundation has ended, Christoph Hmmerle will remain a member of the Board for two more years, contributing to the development of the Foundation and its activities with his great experience and knowledge. Professor Mariano Sanz, who in Zurich officially took over as new president of the Osteology Foundation, has been a member of the Board for 12 years, he also served as Chairmen of the Education Committee and Member of the Executive Board for several years. For him, the Foundation and its activities are therefore already familiar - with Mariano Sanz, the Osteology Foundation is in the best hands, said Christoph Hmmerle. Mariano Sanz thanked him, and said that in the past 12 years Christoph Hmmerle has done a superb job. Not only as a result of his vision and work, but also through his personal and social skills has the Foundation become a friendly family of leaders all striving for the same objective, which is to fulfil the mission of the Osteology Foundation. Mariano Sanz does not intend to change the strategy of the Osteology Foundation. We will continue the successful work, and wherever possible extend it to other parts of the world, he said in an interview, and added: we shall consolidate our accomplishments, but at the same time open up to new technologies and improve communications media with the goal of widening our reach in order to better fulfil our mission. Read the full interview with Mariano Sanz

The Osteology Foundation calls for applications for the new Large Clinical Grants. Theprogram aims to support hypothesis driven clinical research by well-established research groups with demonstrated clinical research expertise. There are two stages in the application process: Stage 1 Applicants can submit an abstract of their proposed project by15 November. The Osteology Science Committee selects projects which then progress to the next stage. Stage 2 Applicants are invited to submit their full application. The submissions are then evaluated for potential funding by the Osteology Science Committee. Study types Research types falling within the scope of the Osteology Foundation are for example: RCT (also small multi centres) and quasi RCT Case controlled studies Prospective cohort studies Surgical techniques (also in combination with biologics, drugs and devices) e.g.: Biologics Dugs (also e.g. phase I / phase II - pilot studies, proof of principle) Devices (also e.g. phase I / phase II - pilot studies, proof of principle) Combination products Who can apply? Well-established research groups that demonstrated clinical research expertise. Amount of funding Grants are limited to 350000 Swiss Francs with a maximum project duration of three years. Awarding criteria Hypothesis answering a clinical research question relevant to the field of oral and maxillofacial regeneration Methodology Facilities and expertise to conduct a GCP study Sound and transparent budget Application guidelines Apply now!

Amid friendly autumn weather, the Osteology Foundation welcomed over 300 delegates in Baden-Baden to the 5th National Osteology Symposium from 18-19 September 2015. Scientists and practitioners from Germany, Switzerland and Italy met under the motto Science-based treatment concepts for dental practice. The focus was on practical questions from the daily routine of regenerative dentistry. Scientific evidence as a basis was always taken into account. A total of 34 industry exhibitors sponsored the workshops and the scientific symposium, thus providing participants with high level training as well as information about their products and services. INTENSIVE TRAINING IN 16 WORKSHOPS Friday was the traditional day for practical exercises. The workshops occupied the entire Baden-Baden congress house. Never before had that many workshops been on offer. The wide variety of 16 practical and theoretical workshops attracted close to 200 participants to topics such as extraction socket management, sinus, anterior tooth aesthetics, GBR, interposition, bone splitting, peri-implantitis, soft tissue surgery or the management of failures. The focus was on extensive hands-on training on animal specimens, which could then be applied in practice by the participants. Excellent organisation in advance and a structured approach was reflected by the relaxed atmosphere when welcoming the participants. This was acknowledged by feedback from the participants, stating they had rarely encountered such a stress-free and relaxed further education event at such a high level. PRACTITIONERS FORUM 20 success factors relating to tissue regeneration were presented in the forum for advanced practitioners led by Professor Friedrich Neukam. In front of an audience of some 50 participants, Dr Matthias Mller, legal counsel to the DGMKG, kicked off the session and spoke on current legal issues relating to surgical intervention. Professor Ralf Rler presented measures on the successful treatment of infections and Dr Oliver Brendel discussed the various implant concepts and timings from a prosthetic point of view before the break. In the second half of the session, Dr Gerd Krner provided insights on what needs to be considered when transforming severely periodontally damaged teeth into an aesthetic piece of artwork. Dr Christian Hammcher and Dr Jamal Stein presented their concept on managing peri-implantitis which they had developed and fine-tuned over many years. Dr Raoul Rendchen ended the session with an overview on the consequences of surgical malpositioning of implants. SCIENCE AT A HIGH LEVEL As the Osteology Symposium not only has the aim of bringing science into dental practices, but also wishes to support and enthuse young scientists as well as gaining their interest for the congress, a new highlight was provided by the scientific forum for young physicians which was held in parallel to the practice-oriented events on the Friday. With 23 poster submissions, the interest was overwhelming and by far exceeded initial expectations, so that the jury of the Osteology Foundation had to decide in advance which of the short oral presentations were to be admitted. Moderated by Professor Bilal Al-Nawas, Member of the Expert Council of the Osteology Foundation, Dr Birgit Schfer and Dr Peer Kmmerer held a presentation on the importance and numerous possible stumbling blocks in the field of biomaterials research as well as clinical research. The poster contributions and short presentations covered a variety of subjects, ranging from basic research to pre-clinical as well as clinical research. During the break, the roughly 40 participants had the opportunity of discussing their current priorities and results, including networking between the universities. Other interested delegates to the Osteology Symposium joined the young scientists, and all praised the high scientific level of the forum. TOP LEVEL SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMME Professor Friedrich Neukam opened the symposium on Saturday in the famous Benazet Hall of the Baden-Baden Kurhaus with an overview on the scientific commitment of the Osteology Foundation. A very special moment was the award ceremony of the Osteology Science Award for the best presentations in the scientific forum on the day before. The awards went to Dr Annika Kasten (Rostock) and Dr Martin Heller (Mainz), who each received a voucher for the Osteology Research Academy in 2016. The first third of the symposium under the aegis of Professor Ralf Rler was devoted to the clinical protocols and long-term success rates of treating alveoli. Dr Daniel Thoma gave an impressive presentation on the Zurich Concept, as to how and above all why, the various concepts ranging from immediate to delayed restorations can be differentiated. He also gave an outlook on how pending new developments can adapt the treatment of extraction alveoli even better to the needs of patients. Dr Christiane Kunert-Keil examined the orthodontic movement of teeth following augmentation measures, a topic which is still relatively new in terms of science. According to her experience, the augmented bone should not be too dense, however, following augmentation with Bio-Oss Collagen, loading can already be introduced after only a few weeks, which represents a major gain in time compared with the present standards. The fact that implant dentistry has meanwhile attracted a large field of users, was highlighted by Dr Mario Roccuzzo with his statement that while he used to receive referrals for implant placement, he is now more involved in saving implants. Using case studies, he demonstrated how ridge preservation techniques can be applied initially to facilitate implant positioning in order to achieve a stable outcome in the long term. The second session, headed by Professor Robert Sader, focussed on new insights in block augmentation. Professor Katja Nelson gave a presentation on what autologous blocks from different host regions can achieve and the problems encountered. According to her experience, the iliac crest graft is suited best, but harvesting is not always possible in daily dental practice. Here retromolar bone would be the first choice, but for reasons not yet known precisely, suitability is only limited for ridge preservation. The limitation of options was not only due the materials per se, but also due to the experience of surgeons. Professor Becker explained the main difference between allogenic and xenogenic bone replacement materials and presented the various studies his working group had conducted with blocks over the past years. He underlined that useful alternatives to autologous blocks could exist, if the choice of materials and technique were adapted to the biological limitations. Problems with dehiscences and infections usually occurred through over-contouring. However, as the time required for the complete reconstruction of autologous blocks takes approximately seven years, it remains necessary to conduct long-term studies with biomaterials as nobody so far knows how the alternative materials behave in the long term if an infection occurs. Professor Massimo Simion discussed the pros and cons of autologous and xenogenic blocks compared to bone chips and granules and demonstrated their areas of use as well as their limitations. Although block augmentation tends to show high stability in part, one can observe non-vital areas histologically after several years, whereas chips tend to vascularise rapidly as a rule and the graft contains considerably more vital bone. In the third part of the symposium, Professor Friedrich Neukam approached the topic of cross-border augmentation and avoiding errors before they occur. Professor Bilal Al-Nawas presented numerous cases at the edge of the abyss for iatrogenic-caused failures, for example due to incorrectly positioned or dimensioned implants, as well results following overload of the regenerative potential. According to the current guidelines and risk classifications, there are groups which can be well predicted in dental practice, groups which are questionable, and groups which should better not be included in the planning of augmentation therapies. In many cases, a lot can be gained if major augmentation is avoided and by proceeding step by step to keep the risks low. Professor Torsten Reichert concurred. His presentation focussed on patient-related factors which could lead to failure. One of the risks being, that various pre-existing disorders and treatments may have affected bone metabolism over the years or were, in part, not diagnosed at all. Often however, there was hardly any evidence which prohibited implantation in such situations. Dr Michael Stimmelmayr focussed on complications relating to soft tissue, for example, lacking keratinising gingiva, scarring due to incorrect incision, volume loss due to graft necrosis, or lacking bone foundation for the soft tissue. In terms of soft tissue management, there is often a lack of necessary experience or insufficient education. Success factors for soft tissue management include patient selection, good compliance, appropriate pre-treatment and oral hygiene, extensive patient education and atraumatic surgical techniques. See all photos from the event

Research drives advances in science - this is why the Osteology Foundation is committed to running an intensive course on good scientific practice and research methodology. 26 participants from 12 different countries attended the Core Module in Lucerne this year. The one-week intensive course provided an overview of the planning and running of a study project from A to Z. In classroom sessions with leading experts, such as Niklaus Lang and Reinhard Gruber, case studies and exercises in teams the young researchers learned the Essentialsof Research Methodology, how to plan, conduct, evaluate and publish the results. The participants thereby particularly liked the highly interactive classes and the casual atmosphere. The interaction among the participants as well as the experts was regarded as extremely valuable. They discovered that they have very similar experiences and problems in their research practice despite coming from different countries and cultures from all-over the world, such as Egypt, Brazil, Europe and China. The dates for all up-coming courses can be found on the Osteology Research Academy website. Education Grants are available for participation in the courses. Application is possible online. Deadline: 1 December. I loved the informal atmosphere. The lecturers were engaging and inspiring, and gave me the opportunity to dispel several research doubts I had. Elena Calciolari, United Kingdom An outstanding, well-structured course, with the worlds best experts in the field of dental research. Mahmoud Shalash, Egypt I feel very privileged to have been selected for an education grant from the Osteology Foundation and to be attending the Osteology Research Academy, learning from great renowned professors. This will definitely make a big difference in my career. Vanessa Camillo de Almeida, Brazil (right in picture) The ORA Lucerne gave me the opportunity to meetinteresting colleaguesfrom all over the worldin a great atmosphere. Attending high-level presentations and workshops broadened my scientific horizon. Jonas Lorenz, Germany Attending the Research Academy Lucerne was of greatest value for gaining knowledge on practical aspects on clinical and pre-clinical research provided by experts from different disciplines. The great course environment provided the opportunity to interactively discuss and learn how to work within a team, especially during the workshops. Aliye Akcali, Turkey An excellent course for young clinicians that are heading for research in the field of oral tissue regeneration. Bo Chen, China